User talk:LEvalyn/Archives/ 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Disambiguation link notification for March 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elegiac Sonnets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Thomson.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
May 2021 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Your GA nomination of Beachy Head (poem)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Beachy Head (poem) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Urve -- Urve (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Beachy Head (poem) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
William Wells in the news
The work of William Wells has been cited as leading to an important change in medical guidance about how COVID-19 is transmitted.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwup-that-helped-covid-kill/
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3829873
- Thank you very much for these links! The Wired article especially was a great read, and these are good sources to show how Wells' work became newly relevant with COVID-19 (which is indeed how I myself first heart of him). I've added them to the article! ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 21:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
The Polyester Prince - Message
Hi oulfis! you replied to a comment i made last month on the wikiproject books page saying to message you regarding any questions i might have while constructing [the polyester prince] wiki page. I have just uploaded the first major changes to the article and was wondering if you could give it a quick read to see if I am going in the right direction. I understand if you cannot though. For my class I still have to upload another 1000 words to the article and so far all i can think to add/change is to improve the lead section, possibly add a bit more to the "sequel" part and have a couple paragraphs regarding its reception - reviews. I was wondering that your opinion would be in regards to what else I could add to better develop this wiki page :D. Thanks a bunch! --WaTErMelON690 (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hello WaTErMelON690, it is good to hear from you! I appreciate your messages here and on the article's talk page, which are good wiki etiquette. I will happily take a look at the article. I am sorry to hear that you need to write 1000 more words, since it is Wikipedia's general advice not to have assignments require a certain amount of words (see WP:INSTRUCTORS); often, a short encyclopedia entry is better than a longer one, and it is possible to improve an article a great deal without changing its length. However, in this case I can see some places where the article would benefit from more information. I will write some suggestions on the Talk page of the article itself, so that future editors of the article can see our conversation about its content there. If you have more general questions about wikipedia, please feel free to ask them here! ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 04:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Reverts at Kubla Khan
Oulfis, I understand your good faith revert (diff) at Kubla Khan, with your summary, I don't see anything wrong with good-faith edits to change note ref style from ref group to NoteRef format, which was done effectively, with other constructive edits. Your revert restored the changes made by a block-evading sock, whose edits I had previously reverted. Three comments on this:
- changing from one valid style (such as a ref group) to another style (such as NoteRef) without discussion when the prior version has long term consensus, is contrary to WP:CITEVAR. You might consider it a WP:BOLD edit in an attempt to change consensus, and that's fine. However, if the bold edit is reverted to status quo ante, you should not re-revert; instead, if you prefer the NoteRef style, you should instead open a discussion on the Talk page about it.
- the other edits were not constructive; they consisted either of other WP:CITEVAR violations which have no effect on the rendered page, such as changing "
{{cite web}}" to "{{Cite web}}" or inserting blanks around equal signs in param values; or they are MOS:VAR violations, such as inserting pointless blanks in section headers, such as changing==Notes==to== Notes ==, or pointless capitalization of template names. Again, a BOLD change is fine, but if challenged by another user, they should not be reinserted, but discussed. - the user who made these changes, is a block-evading sockpuppet. Such changes are to be reverted on sight per blocking policy; this includes even good edits that improve the article.
The reverts I made of IP user 49.195.227.54 meet both conditions. That is, I reverted them because they were violations of WP:CITEVAR and MOS:VAR (a relatively minor transgression, worth a warning, but not much more), but principally, because they are attempts to evade a block.
Even so, a good-faith editor can come in afterward, like you did, and keep (i.e., re-insert) any edits that you deem are worth keeping. Those edits are then on you, whether they improve the article or not. I would just advise you going forward, that if you see anything about WP:DENY or "block evasion" or "sockpuppet" in the edit summary of a revert, that you take a second look to see why it was done, to see if you really want to revert or not. Also, rather than a blanket revert, consider keeping just the parts you think are improvements, such as the NoteTag style you mentioned, rather than everything, including MOS:VAR and CITE:VAR violations. At this point, you've taken on changes to capitalization, white-space usage, and in particular, changes to section titles in this article, that are of long-standing stable usage from before the sock's changes. I won't revert your edit, but I just wanted you to be clear on why the revert happened in the first place, so you can think about how best to proceed if something similar happens again.
By the way: the only thing I disagreed with strongly in your edit summary, is that the previous edits were good-faith edits to change note ref style; they were certainly not that; rather, they are a part of a years-long campaign by an editor who uses multiple accounts in attempt to force his personal style preference into articles all over the encyclopedia, with multiple vandalism fighters and admins running around trying to limit the damage and block him whenever he reappears. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, just noticed that the edit summary for my edit, did *not* in fact say anything about socks or DENY or anything else; this is an unfortunate aspect of the "Rollback" facility--it doesn't let you edit the automatic summary, in order to add those words. That makes your revert make more sense to me, as you didn't know about the sock. Mostly, I use 'undo', and I can tailor the edit summary, and mention their block evasion; unfortunately, with rollback, the tool doesn't let you. Mathglot (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Mathglot thank you very much for explaining why you rolled back those edits-- I was in the middle of writing a post to ask for more info on your talk page, because I was really confused, but learning that they are evading a block it makes a lot more sense! The context you provide definitely changes my assessment of the edits themselves. I happen to really like the way they changed the section titles for the references, which is probably the main reason it all seemed "good faith and constructive" to me; the last section-level changes were mine and at the time I wasn't happy with that part of the article. But I see now that a better response would have been to manually make just that change myself. Next time I am confused by a rollback on edits that don't look like vandalism, I will remember that rollback is also used to deny sockpuppets. Would it serve a purpose for me to revert my revert, do you think, or is that more fuss than it's worth? Thanks again for your work & your explanation. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 00:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- (by "changes to the section titles" I mean making both "citations" and "sources" into subheads under "references", not the spaces in headers-- which was the edit that seemed most 'constructive', especially since I feel like my reorganization in Feb 2020 was just last month so the sections don't feel 'stable' to me) ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 00:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I understood what you meant. More fuss than it's worth. I don't think it's worth reverting back, but tyvm for asking. It's really a pet peeve of mine, that rollback doesn't allow you to change the autogenerated edit summary, because it can lead to confusion like this, and waste of editor time all around. If you independently thought the changes are an improvement (even if done in bad faith by the IP sock) they you have a right to revert (minus the BRD issue, but let's leave that aside). As far as this article is concerned, if you're happy with the way it is now, I'd just leave it. Even if you are unhappy, but only in a very minor way (like where the blanks are around the section title equal signs), then it's probably not worth fixing, as it all looks the same to the reader, anyway. That's why I don't bother with minor changes like MOS:VAR and CITE:VAR most of the time when innocently done in good faith; it's only when someone is some personal campaign, or is a blocked sock, is it worth a revert. Thanks for you comment, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
DYK for Beachy Head (poem)
On 26 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Beachy Head (poem), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the poem Beachy Head by Charlotte Turner Smith was written while Britons feared Napoleon's armies would invade at that spot? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Beachy Head (poem). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Beachy Head (poem)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
June 2021 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Potentially Review my Work?
Hi again! I hope you having a lovely day. I was wondering if you could potentially review everything I have written thus far for The Polyester Prince article i've been working on for the past couple months. So far its rated as a C-Class article so if you agree with this rating I was wondering what I could do to improve it to a B-Class article. I completely understand if you do not wish to review this as it would take time out of your day. Thanks for everything you have done to help me better understand wikipedia and what types of things you can do to improve articles. --WaTErMelON690 (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hello WaTErMelON690 this is just a quick reply as I am still travelling, but I will be happy to take another look some time this week. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 18:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
July 2021 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
DYK for Letters Written in France
On 14 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Letters Written in France, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Helen Maria Williams's Letters Written in France praised the French Revolution even though she was imprisoned during the Reign of Terror for being English? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Letters Written in France. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Letters Written in France), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
August Editathons with Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Your GA nomination of Beachy Head (poem)
The article Beachy Head (poem) you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Beachy Head (poem) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Urve -- Urve (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Autopatrolled granted
Hi LEvalyn, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Joe (talk) 09:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)